This article describes priority areas for research on the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on older adults that have been identified by the CIHR Institute of Aging (CIHR-IA). The process used by CIHR-IA consists of several iterative phases and thus far has resulted in identification of three key areas for Covid-19 research needs and four cross-cutting thematic areas. The key research priority areas are as follows: response of older adults to disease, vaccination, and therapeutics; mental health and isolation; and supportive care environments. The four cross-cutting themes are equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI); ethical/moral considerations; evidence-informed practices; and digital health technologies. The priorities outlined in this article will inform CIHR-IA’s responses to Covid-19 research needs.

Cet article présente les domaines prioritaires de recherche sur les impacts de la pandémie de COVID-19 chez les personnes âgées telles qu’ils ont été identifiés par l’Institut du vieillissement des IRSC (IV-IRSC). Le processus utilisé par l’IV-IRSC a comporté plusieurs phases itératives qui ont permis d’identifier trois secteurs prioritaires parmi les besoins de la recherche relative à la COVID-19, et quatre axes thématiques transversaux. Les secteurs de recherche prioritaires sont : 1) la réponse des personnes âgées à la maladie, à la vaccination et aux traitements, 2) la santé mentale et l’isolement, et 3) les milieux de soins soutenants. Les quatre thèmes transversaux sont : a) l’Équité, la diversité et l’inclusion (EDI), b) les considérations éthiques et morales, c) les pratiques fondées sur les données probantes, et d) les technologies numériques de la santé. Les priorités décrites dans cet article guideront les réponses de l’IV-IRSC aux besoins de la recherche sur la COVID-19.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to identify and critically appraise the use of Value of Information (VOI) analyses undertaken as part of health technology assessment (HTA) reports in England and Wales.

Methods: A systematic review of National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) funded HTA reports published between 2004 and 2013 identified the use of VOI methods and key analytical details in terms of: (i) types of VOI methodology used; (ii) parameters and key assumptions; and (iii) conclusions drawn in terms of the need for further research.

Results: A total of 512 HTA reports were published during the relevant timeframe. Of these, 203 reported systematic review and economic modeling studies and 25 of these had used VOI method(s). Over half of the twenty-five studies (n = 13) conducted both EVPI (Expected Value of Perfect Information) and EVPPI (Expected Value of Partial Perfect Information) analyses. Eight studies conducted EVPI analysis, three studies conducted EVPI, EVPPI, and EVSI (Expected Value of Sampling Information) analyses and one study conducted EVSI analysis only. The level of detail reporting the methods used to conduct the VOI analyses varied.

Conclusions: This review has shown that the frequency of the use of VOI methods is increasing at a slower pace compared with the published volume of HTA reports. This review also suggests that analysts reporting VOI method(s) in HTA reports should aim to describe the method(s) in sufficient detail to enable and encourage decision-makers guiding research prioritization decisions to use the potentially valuable outputs from quantitative VOI analyses.